Demal demal yahoo:You have it bass-ackwards.I'm saying that rights come with responsibilities.This is the only Amendment that names the responsibility. Refusing to bear arms in defense of the United States, absent being a conscientious objector, is grounds to deny citizenship, according to the Supreme Court.Justice Story, appointed by Madison, was pointedly clear on this when he discussed Amendment II in his Commentaries.Here's the part of that discussion that the unlimited right folks leave out:"[A]mong the American people there is a growing indif ...

redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Yippee! Here's yet another Fark gun thread where the Farklibs spout off the same tired old crap:

Law abiding citizens simply cannot be trusted with guns.

The poor people need to simply rely on the local police for their protection; the same local police that Farklibs are quick to condemn if said police even look at someone the wrong way.

Nitpick the 2nd Amendment with every invented technicality to try to prove it's irrelevance.

Farkilbs are infinitely smarter than anyone with an opinion different than theirs, ESPECIALLY when the discussion is about guns.

About the only thing missing is how the streets of America's cities will become the "wild, wild, west" (which still hasn't happened) if you allow law abiding citizens to arm themselves. All the while pretending that the lawlessness in Chicago (with it's gun ban) is not happening.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

phoenix895:In Houston too? They really better hope the Astros are middle of the pack. Bad year, riots with guns. World Series win (however unlikely) bigger riots with guns.

I'd like to point out that we won two NBA championships in the Nineties and lost a World Series in '05 without any rioting, looting or burning of private property. I am pretty proud of my city for that, dooshbag.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:duenor: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

Bonk'im on the head with the fine club you're holding in your hands.I agree, a pump or auto would be nice, but it's a heck of a lot better than frantically begging the cops to come sooner.

I certainly don't think waiting for the police is a realistic option, I'd advise having a semi auto weapon with ample capacity.

Yes, you are 100% correct. That being said, ANYTHING is better than nothing at all. Even if it is a single shot!

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

Sure. But this program isn't designed to arm someone for war. It's meant to prove that having an armed population is a deterrent for criminals breaking in in the first place. They are trying to give guns to certain areas then study the crime trends later.

But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.

Magnanimous_J:But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.

That certainly would be the rational decision, but do you really think it's a good idea to gamble on the judgement of someone who's decided to make a living through breaking and entry?

pedrop357:redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, - and armed. If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

demaL-demaL-yeH:pedrop357: redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, - and armed. If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?

redmid17:demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, - and armed. If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?

Doom MD:redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, - and armed. If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?

Soylent green, of course

He might be agreeable to that. Should probably take away his guns before telling him that.

redmid17:demaL-demaL-yeH: pedrop357: redmid17:If one can own a gun outside of the organized or unorganized militia, then your reasoning would seem to be rather incomplete.

me (pedrop357):That's the problem with his 'reasoning". He puts forward lengthy posts about the power of the government to equip and train militias, etc. yet never explains how any of that in any way restricts, hinders, etc. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

Dammit.

Quit attributing to me positions that I do not hold: The part you keep leaving out because it does not fit your narrative, is the Amendment II responsibility of the people is to bear arms in "[a] well regulated Militia,"dammit.

Self-defense, hunting, target practice, skeet and trap, and the like, are valid and legitimate uses.But the right exists so you can fulfill your responsibility, citizen.There is no such thing as an unorganized militia:That is an armed mob, which is useless.There is no such thing as a self-organized militia: That is also an armed mob.

Congress screwed the pooch, and the signs were obvious 200 years ago. This is a monster that Congress created and that Congress can banish with their constitutional enumerated Powers.

The only confiscation I advocate, you maroons, is from criminals and the mentally ill.

What I want to see implemented is the restoration of the Militia that the Founders planned, which means a heck of a lot more people would be regularly trained, disciplined, fully qualified, regulated, - and armed. If that cannot be accomplished, perhaps we should revisit Amendment II, but I'm not ready to throw it out.

So once again, how are we addressing the people who cannot be or are not in the militia? My uncle served in Vietnam and has been using guns almost as long as my dad is alive, but he's over 64. What would we do with him?

No "free" outs from the responsibility.If he's fit for duty, he's in the Militia. If he's not fit for duty, he's still in the Militia in whatever capacity he can fulfill duties.

/Those ages are set by Congress, you know.//There is precedent: Retirees can be recalled to duty at any time (10 USC 683).

BraveNewCheneyWorld:BarkingUnicorn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Then why do we send armed police in response to crime?

Not to hand out guns, I assure you.

We already handed guns out to the police, that's the point.

His analogy is just wrong, and quite honestly a great example of the flawed reasoning skills present in anti gun advocates.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun. Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/About-Us.html

"If the Journal News map fiasco taught us anything, it is that thieves may target specific homes in order to steal weapons of worth."

Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers? Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage? I still don't like what the JN did. Just wondering if it had any effects.

Dimensio:That appears, to me, to be a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian purpose.

You forgot to say that it probably has one of those shoulder things that go up. 10 round fixed magazine, firing 8mm mauser. astonishingly low recoil for such a big gun.The time of graceful, curvaceous firearms is gone, though. These days snap together parts, carbon fiber, and mass production are all the rage.

I can tell how much the author cares about and/or dislikes firearms period by how he/she leaves out pretty important details.

The program gives away $80 SINGLE SHOT shotguns after proper background checks and training. They choose the single shot shotguns because they are inexpensive and especially because they have absolutely ZERO street value. not exactly the choice weapon for a thug since he really cant use it effectively himself, and cant pawn it for any real cash.

Overall, I dont see a huge problem with it. Its not like they are handing out UZIs to every tom dick and harry that asks.

Interesting that they claim the program costs $400 per gun. Leaves a lot of money for "partners" in training, background checks, promotion, etc.

Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone.

They also pay for range time, LEO training of the participants, and a few other things from the website. Just read the about us section. They recognize the limitations of a single-shot shotgun but are using it for a few reasons.

http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/About-Us.html

"If the Journal News map fiasco taught us anything, it is that thieves may target specific homes in order to steal weapons of worth."

Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers? Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage? I still don't like what the JN did. Just wondering if it had any effects.

I saw a couple of articles where gun safes of registered owners were specifically targeted but I don't know if there has been a huge pattern.

Any number of things could have kept those women from returning to that judge's court room. Another number of things could account for the uptick in returns after he left. Maybe those women were abused again but were more afraid of the judge than of their abusers. That's just for starters.

redmid17:Has there been an uptick in such thefts from outed New Yorkers? Has there been any result at all besides Internet outrage? I still don't like what the JN did. Just wondering if it had any effects.

I saw a couple of articles where gun safes of registered owners were specifically targeted but I don't know if there has been a huge pattern.

I vaguely recall a case involving a gun safe that wouldn't open. I honestly don't believe that a burglar would attempt only a gun safe. People with gun safes surely have other valuables lying about.

I was hoping for neighbors shaming gun licensees, or someone whose house didn't sell because there was a licensee next door. :-) But overall, it seems nothing happened.

Still don't lie it. Don't like mugshots or sex offenders being online for the whole world's entertainment, either. Not everything is everyone's business or pleasure.

BarkingUnicorn:I was hoping for neighbors shaming gun licensees, or someone whose house didn't sell because there was a licensee next door. :-) But overall, it seems nothing happened.

Still don't lie it. Don't like mugshots or sex offenders being online for the whole world's entertainment, either. Not everything is everyone's business or pleasure.

This is a picture of an associate's safe that was cut open, most likely with a sawzall.I'm actually ok with serial number registration to deter theft - but I definitely understand the worries about who gets to use that list, and how.

Ever since taking my CCW, I've become acutely aware that there are some major assholes who like to portray themselves as responsible gun owners. Knowing the laws in the state now, this has made me believe that some people need to stop helping the cause, so to speak.

Especially frustrating is the fact that Tennessee state law prescribes that if you are doing ANYTHING illegal, in any way, that you forfeit your civil and criminal protections under the law in the State. So every idiot who proudly touts it's their constitutional right to wear their guns into areas where it is posted not to do so stops being responsible as a citizen and starts being a criminal.

hardinparamedic:Ever since taking my CCW, I've become acutely aware that there are some major assholes who like to portray themselves as responsible gun owners. Knowing the laws in the state now, this has made me believe that some people need to stop helping the cause, so to speak.

Especially frustrating is the fact that Tennessee state law prescribes that if you are doing ANYTHING illegal, in any way, that you forfeit your civil and criminal protections under the law in the State. So every idiot who proudly touts it's their constitutional right to wear their guns into areas where it is posted not to do so stops being responsible as a citizen and starts being a criminal.

What does this post have to do with TFA? I'm not even sure what your post means. Running a stop sign is illegal. Are you suggesting that in TN you lose your constitutional rights then?As for wearing guns into prohibited areas, government property and private property is not public property.

iheartscotch:If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Still, and this irritates Concealed Carry advocates, there are a handful of people (cue Jezza)in the world that can draw fast enough to stop someone that already is aimed at them. Not only that, but you're relying on the decision making abilities of people who constantly make bad decisions (criminals) to suddenly make a good decision and not try to rob someone that might be armed. Given #2 and the reality of #1, as a crook I'd look at it as "Hey! Free gun!"

BarkingUnicorn:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

That's a mighty heroic burglar you're postulating there.

I was suggesting that criminals, being people who have chosen to break into people's houses for a living, aren't to be trusted to make a rational choice. But if you're more inclined to label the criminal who's instinct is to fight rather than flee 'heroic', that's your prerogative.

duenor:What does this post have to do with TFA? I'm not even sure what your post means. Running a stop sign is illegal. Are you suggesting that in TN you lose your constitutional rights then?As for wearing guns into prohibited areas, government property and private property is not public property.

Concealed carry is not a constitutional right - it's a privledge granted to those people who meet the legal requirements set forth by their respective states. Gun ownership is, within certain reasonable legal restrictions as upheld by the SCOTUS. Concealed carry is, also, in no way comparable to driving a motor vehicle, which is NOT a right, but a privilege granted by the State of Tennessee. Also, a moving violation is NOT a crime.

Carrying your gun in ANY area, public or private, which has a clearly identified "No weapons on this premise" sign IS a crime, however, in the State. You have just committed a class E Felony.

The reason I've brought this up is I see multiple people on FARK in these threads, all the time, biatch about gun free zones, and how they carry regardless. In the past four days, I've had to listen to several people talk about how much better it is to break the law which they claim to follow because they don't agree with it.

The more I hear it, the more annoying it gets.

inglixthemad:Still, and this irritates Concealed Carry advocates, there are a handful of people (cue Jezza)in the world that can draw fast enough to stop someone that already is aimed at them. Not only that, but you're relying on the decision making abilities of people who constantly make bad decisions (criminals) to suddenly make a good decision and not try to rob someone that might be armed. Given #2 and the reality of #1, as a crook I'd look at it as "Hey! Free gun!"

One of the examples my instructor used was a guy who worked at the gun store I took it in. He had shot two people in self defense after one person had put a gun to his girlfriend's head and the other shot into the ground in front of them. He drew from a concealed holster in the small of his back, killed one and wounded the other. Had he had that gun visible, they would have just put a bullet in his head and took his gun.

If you're going to carry, he pointed out, you should do so in a way that no one knows you're armed.

hardinparamedic:One of the examples my instructor used was a guy who worked at the gun store I took it in. He had shot two people in self defense after one person had put a gun to his girlfriend's head and the other shot into the ...

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree. CC is concealed carry. And it is indeed a privilege (as opposed to, some would say, open carry). Even open carry would be subject to prohibited areas.As for people who choose to carry anyway.... many who do so aren't doing it with a CC. For those, I guess it's a personal choice - the whole "judged by 12 or carried by 6" thing. Like everything else, you take certain risks.

I wish my state allowed me CC. I probably wouldn't carry that often even if I had it, but it sure would make me feel better on certain days when I'd want to.

Magnanimous_J:BraveNewCheneyWorld: Magnanimous_J: BarkingUnicorn: Is a single-shot gun effective protection or false security? I know it's harder to miss with a shotgun, but not all intruders work alone

It's better than nothing. A shotgun is a very effective defense tool, maybe the most effective. Being a single shot is a limitation, but you can reload them pretty uick if you practice.

You're not reloading any single shot weapon faster than someone can dash across an average sized room.

Sure. But this program isn't designed to arm someone for war. It's meant to prove that having an armed population is a deterrent for criminals breaking in in the first place. They are trying to give guns to certain areas then study the crime trends later.

But it would take a pretty committed attacker to get shot at, then charge the shooter. In the heat of the moment, the intruder is probably not going to be certain what kind of gun just shot at him. A person's instinct would be to run for his life at that point.

...or shoot back. That instincts called "fight or flight" for a reason.

monster_teef:When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.

Dimensio:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: FTFA: ""Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

Holy shiat. Can this guy be any more of an arrogant elitist asshole? And (if we are discussing minorities) a racist? Wow. Just... wow.

Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".

Wow. So if I were to mug his family at a shopping center or whatever, I would be totally safe, right?

I keed.

Seriously, it would be an interesting experiment to see just how far one could push that belief. Just finished reading "Stolen Prey" by John Sandford, so I've got some pretty ugly images in my head.

BarkingUnicorn:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.

How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later? Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

What if someone become suicidal later?

So.... by that argument, we should strive for a "Minority Report" world of pre-guilt sentencing? Sounds like it, if you are going to worry about what someone might do. By all means, let us pre-arrest.

Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:BarkingUnicorn: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls

Finally, someone else with common sense and a brain.

How would strangers know that someone's suicidal? What if someone become suicidal later? Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

What if someone become suicidal later?

So.... by that argument, we should strive for a "Minority Report" world of pre-guilt sentencing? Sounds like it, if you are going to worry about what someone might do. By all means, let us pre-arrest.

Shouldn't guns be kept out of careless hands, and don't people end up in high-crime neighborhoods through carelessness?

shiat. Hit the wrong button. Answer: no, sometimes shiat happens that you can't control. Oh, but we should demand perfection and precognition from all Citizens.